Palo Alto Networks K2-Series Reviews

We have eight VFDs. We have the bigger firewalls. I forget the model number but they're the bigger ones. We have smaller ones—the 220s— so we have a pretty good range of Palo Alto firewalls that we use in our company.

One of the most valuable features is Palo Alto's firewall management. We find it easier to manage the firewall centrally.  

In the past, we've had trouble with Palo Alto's application filtering not getting it right. I would not be recommending layer 7 application filtering yet. That's the only hiccup with the product line. In terms of the features, I'd like to see, one of the bigger pieces missing from any firewall system is the ability to monitor and report. I don't think there are any firewalls doing this, but I'd like to see firewalls have the ability to do what Splunk is doing automatically. In other words, the ability to provide log analysis and monitoring from a visualization standpoint would be very beneficial to any firewall. That doesn't really exist today. 

There also needs to be a real methodology to maintain rules. They have rule sets in there and different ways of showing it, but the presentation isn't great. It's not a great presentation of where you have duplicate rules in place that makes it easy to find. Then again, I would say that no firewall company really has good management abilities for that. This isn't to badmouth Palo Alto. It's just that these features don't exist. So as we talk about where threat modeling and cybersecurity need to go, there's no one vendor with the best solution. It'd be nice if it would come in one platform. In other words, you buy their product, and they have a platform that includes that functionality.

We've used Palo Alto for nearly five years now. We formerly used Check Point exclusively, but now we're using Palo for all of our perimeter security and our VPN connection coming in.

Capability-wise, I think Palo Alto firewalls can pretty much handle anything thrown at them. 

I haven't done a lot with tech support. But the guys that are doing it say that outside support from Palo Alto is really good.

Check Point and Palo Alto are very similar as far as the platform's concerned. On the low-end side, maybe for smaller solutions, Check Point firewalls seem to do just fine and are even a little better. Their low-end products are better as far as performance is concerned. At the high-end, they can't touch the Palo Altos. The Palo Altos seem to be significantly better at handling more load and they can service larger throughput in their environment. I would say Palo Alto, overall, has a better, more reliable product line.

I would rate Palo Alto firewalls an eight out of 10.

We primarily use the solution as a next-generation firewall.

This company is a leader in the space.

The company is inventive and always adds a lot of great features.

The support on the solution is excellent.

The initial setup is pretty easy.

The company needs to align better with the customer. At the price point they offer, they need to be as good or better than the competition. They're losing market because they aren't there yet in that regard.

When it comes to renewing the solution, they tend to try to jack up the pricing.

We've been using the solution for almost five years now.

From a hardware point of view, we don't face any issues whatsoever. It's not glitchy or buggy. It doesn't crash. it's reliable.

The technical support has been excellent. We've very satisfied with the level of service they provide. It's one of the main selling features of the product.

Compared to the competition, support is excellent across the board.

We don't find the solution to be overly complex in terms of the initial setup. They make their implementation process pretty clear.

The deployment can happen in one week. It doesn't take too long. Sometimes, if you are new to the product, it might take a month or so.

We tend to use consultants when we implement the solution.

The licensing costs are too high. They need to become more competitive in that regard. We constantly need to bargain to get better pricing.

They tend to take advantage once the product has been sold to us. From a renewal point of view, the price is very high. They are demanding. That itself is creating a bad mark on them.

From a cost perspective, I'd rate the solution two out of ten.

I am trying to avoid Palo Alto, even though they have a very good solution, specifically due to the cost. 

We're just a customer.

From a technical support perspective, I'd easily rate them nine out of ten. If they didn't try to price gouge on renewals, I'd likely rate them higher.

Due to their pricing strategy, especially around renewals, I would not recommend them. We have 20+ firewalls, and we feel the heat when it comes time to renew the solution.

We are a system integrator and this Palo Alto K2-Series is one of the firewall products that we implement for our customers.

This firewall is very good for our customers because they don't have to write their own rules for adding an application.

The WildFire feature is very good.

Using Panorama and the web interface makes it easy to manage.

The reporting functionality in GlobalProtect needs to be improved. Other products, such as Check Point, have better reporting features that give more reports.

The price of the K2-Series should be lowered.

The dashboard could be improved by adding more GUI components.

We have about three years of experience with the Palo Alto K2-Series in my company, although I have only been working with this solution for about one year.

Palo Alto is very stable. In my previous job, I had not faced any stability issues.

All of the higher-level Palo Alto products are scalable.

We are the first level of support for our customers. If the problem is very complicated and we cannot solve it then we open a case through the distributor, which is the second level. After that, if they cannot solve it, the case is escalated directly to the Palo Alto technical team. Generally, if we cannot solve it then the distributor cannot either.

We also have experience with Check Point firewalls, as well as with solutions from Fortinet. I think that Palo Alto is better than Check Point in terms of threat prevention, and both of these are better than Fortinet. Palo Alto, however, is very expensive compared to Fortinet.

Check Point has better reporting and a better dashboard but is more difficult to install. Price-wise, they are similar.

The initial setup is very easy compared to Check Point. It is not hard for me to install and configure features such as High Availability.

We implement and deploy this solution for our customers. We also provide maintenance and support.

Palo Alto firewalls are very expensive.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for protection, especially web protection.

It's great at protecting very important aspects of our company, particularly our servers.

We enjoy the amount of visibility we have in terms of security within our infrastructure.

The initial setup is very easy.

The product scales well.

We've found the solution offers us good stability.

Technical support is helpful and responsive. 

The pricing is reasonable. 

The user interface could be improved. Right now, it's an aspect that is lacking. They should make it more user-friendly. There are too many options visible right now, which makes it confusing. They need to streamline and simplify it.

I'd like to see more data protection on the system. It needs a DLP, a Data Loss Prevention, system.

We've been using the solution for just over five years. We've used it since 2015 or so.

The solution is stable and reliable. The performance is good. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The scalability is there if you need to expand it. It's good.

We have 100 or so users that are using Palo Alto in our organization at this time.

We do have plans to increase usage in the future. We're likely to scale it. 

The technical supports has been really good so far. They respond quickly to our requests. We're quite satisfied with the level of service.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. It's not overly complex or difficult. We found the implementation to be very easy in general. We didn't have any problems. 

The product can be expensive. It's not the cheapest option on the market.

However, I do find it to be less expensive than Cisco.

We're a customer. We also work for other companies and help install the product.

The solution is perfect. I'd rate it at a ten out of ten.

Palo Alto is very affordable and very good overall. They respond quickly to our needs. Palo Alto detects a lot of cybersecurity threats, which has been great.

We use the firewalls to defend our perimeter and data center.

For me personally, the support, in general, is the feature I have found most valuable.

Palo Alto boasts a lot of great features that cover all markets from small businesses to large enterprises.

It's very easy to see everything on the dashboards. 

It would be nice if it could easily be integrated with Elasticsearch or Nagios for monitoring and reporting.

They should lower their prices for small businesses. They should offer subscriptions or box-sets because a lot of companies want to buy it, but they just can't afford it. 

It's not that expensive necessarily; the market is just doing poorly at the moment.

Everything I could possibly want has already been implanted into the new version, including the Internet of Things, machine learning, and SD-WAN; every feature I wanted has already been integrated.

I have been using this solution for roughly eight years.

Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is very stable. I've never had a problem with Palo Alto. The only problem we experienced with it was when the fan broke down — even then, it still kept on working without the fan. No harm was done and Palo Alto replaced it very quickly.

This solution is very scalable.

The initial setup was very straightforward. It only took us a few hours. On the other hand, deployment times vary. Sometimes it takes just a few hours, and other times, due to testing, it can take months. It's not complicated, but when you have to replace something, you have to consider the amount of testing before you put it into production.

We are the integrators.

I would recommend Palo Alto. With Cisco, when you engage Firepower, the performance decreases. Next generation functions with Palo Alto are much, much better. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Palo Alto Networks K2-Series a rating of ten.

You should always choose the best version of a solution. As your company grows, you will want to work with more power and better features. 

I'm a telecom operator, so all of my IT and network management stuff is behind this firewall. 

Palo Alto K2-Series firewalls could use some technical improvements, like main and standby, as well as FTU and STU support. In addition, they should upgrade the CPU, and there are so many other things that I cannot think of off the top of my head. 

I've been using Palo Alto firewalls for two years.

Product-wise, it's stable, but it takes too long to switch between main and standby — maybe 10 to 12 seconds — and sometimes my traffic cuts out, yes. Also, the CPU processing power is not so good.

Palo Alto firewalls are scalable enough. We have about 110 employees in our company, and we are about to expand to 130.

Most firewall companies offer similar products, like Fortinet, etc., but Palo Alto support is not as good as its competitors. Palo Alto is almost zero. If we have issues, they take anywhere from two days to a week to respond. I even wrote to their CEO because there was no response. When it comes to support, this is the worst company.

We have no idea how complicated the setup is. An agent from Palo Alto did all that and then conducted some training. And if we need something, we have to call the agent.

The price is high, but we've already purchased these two boxes, so we have to continue using them for some time. Unfortunately, the salesperson we worked with isn't a Diamond-level agent, so he couldn't give us good discounts. But maybe a lower price is possible.

I rate Palo Alto K2-Series Firewall six out of 10.

I am using Palo Alto Networks K2-Series as a perimeter firewall.

The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is its management abilities. Additionally, the updates are very good.

We had some issues with upgrading in the past. They could make the process easier.

Palo Alto Networks K2-Series has improved their central management but if they could improve upon it more that would be a great benefit.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks K2-Series for approximately 12 years.

The solution is very stable, we have had no issues.

We had some scalability issues with Palo Alto Networks K2-Series. I do not know how good the hardware firewalls are, but the cloud platform is scalable.

When we had some minor issues we were in contact with the technical support and they were very good. We have not used the support often.

The initial setup was easy.

When comparing Palo Alto Networks K2-Series with other solutions it is on the higher end of the price scale.

This solution is best suited for small to medium-sized businesses.

I rate Palo Alto Networks K2-Series a nine out of ten.